The Consequence Argument: Examining the Conditions for a Counterexample to Rule β

The article examines the problem that arises in the attempt to formulate a counterexample to inference rule β . Following a brief introduction to the key concepts and the structure of the modal argument, the focus shifts to the counterexample proposed by Johnson and McKay, as well as the conditions that a valid counterexample should satisfy. Through the analysis of Eric Carlson’s proposal, the article explores the possibility of a weaker interpretation of these conditions. The final section highlights the interpretive tension be­tween conditions (C1) and (C2), underscoring the broader context of the debate between compatibilism and incompatibilism. The article concludes that a constructive debate is significantly hindered if (C1) and (C2) are interpreted in a strong sense.